Re: Reliabilty, was [GENERAL] Future of PostgreSQL

Mike Mascari wrote:
>
> Thomas Reinke wrote:
>
> > 1) Up front, I'll state that we use 6.3, so a number of
> >    the technical glitches may have been solved since...
>
> 6.3 is unbelievably old. Perhaps you weren't getting responses since most
> people don't use versions of PostgreSQL that old? I know I tend not to respond
> to posts about versions that old. Perhaps that's wrong...

We have for a long time not posted, (since 6.4 was out more than 2-3
months)
because we knew that we'd be told to upgrade.  When we posted, 6.3
was current...


>
> Having said that,  I must say that my general impression has been that the
> major code developers took over code which was probably 50% bug-ridden garbage
> and worked away at it with each release performing MAJOR bug fixes. Just read
> Bruce Momjian's HISTORY document to get an idea of the monumental tasks they
> have undertaken. I normally don't upgrade other software at each minor release
> -- but I do with PostgreSQL. You can tell that they've made huge advances
> against the otherwise, uncharted, bug-ridden pieces of 1980's Berkley code...
> They're getting closer and closer to what one might call "robustness" at an
> accelerated pace, so keep the faith!  :-)

Yup...and they're doing a damn good job, as far as I'm concerned. (Else
I
would have switched a long time ago.) My post here was simply to point
out
what our perception was on the robustness issue, and that is
that although the code was a problem, it was _not_ the major problem...


--
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Reinke                            Tel: (905) 331-2260
Director of Technology                   Fax: (905) 331-2504
E-Soft Inc.                         http://www.e-softinc.com